On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I would say that a GUC variable for such behavior as listed in the TODO > > is overzealous. We should either enforce it, or not. As we do not now, > > there is no reason imo to change it. > > Not only is it overzealous, but the proposal to have one reflects a > failure to learn from history. GUC variables that change > transaction-boundary semantics are a bad idea, period: see autocommit.
Nod. Let's get this TODO removed. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
